SPRINGFIELD -- A Hampden Superior Court judge called the handling of videos showing a city police detective terrorizing two juvenile suspects "borderline prosecutorial misconduct," said reasons cited by the district attorney's office for restricting access to the footage were "disturbing" and threatened to turn the videos over to higher authorities for review during a September hearing, according to court records.

In transcripts from a Sept. 15 pretrial hearing obtained by The Republican, Judge Tina S. Page leveled stinging criticism at the Hampden District Attorney's office for placing restrictions on a series of videos showing suspended narcotics Det. Gregg Bigda interrogating two young suspected car thieves in February.

His tactics -- which included threatening to kill and plant evidence on two teens suspected of stealing an unmarked, undercover police car from outside a pizza shop -- earned him a 60-day suspension and have led to a troublesome ripple effect for the district attorney's office.

Drug cases in which Bigda was a prime witness have been abruptly dismissed. Other defendants have received generous plea deal offers in order to avoid the prospect of going to trial with questions over the detective's credibility threatening prosecutors' cases.

Though the videos are seven months old, prosecutors only began releasing the footage to defense lawyers recently.

The hearing before Page included defense attorneys Jeanne Liddy, Joe A. Smith III and Thomas McGuire arguing on behalf of three clients set for trial on drug charges.

The hearing focused primarily on the videos, and the fact that defense lawyers were required to sign an unusual "non-disclosure agreement" in order to receive the footage.

Liddy told Page she did so only under duress.

"I signed the agreement under duress because I was told that I would not receive the material unless I signed the agreement," Liddy said.

Assistant District Attorney Mary Sandstrom argued that the office resisted releasing the videos without restrictions, in part, because they featured juveniles.

However, the prosecutor also argued more frequently that the videos would "embarrass" the police department and Bigda.

"I would argue to you that that would -- that such disclosure would simply embarrass them. The only point of disclosure would be to ridicule them, Your Honor," Sandstrom told Page during the hearing, later adding that unfettered release of the videos would simply turn the court into a "shooting gallery" to mock the police department.

Page, who ultimately issued a protective order restricting public view of the videos to shield the juveniles' identities, was nonetheless critical of the district attorney's early handling of the footage.

"Procedurally, this was not handled properly," Page said. She added: "Not handled properly on a lot of levels."

She continued: "For you to tell defense counsel, I'm going to give it to you, it's exculpatory ... but you need to sign this first, is borderline prosecutorial misconduct."

Prosecutors are bound under the law to provide defense attorneys with any materials they have collected in an investigation that could potentially be helpful to defendants. However, state law also prohibits public dissemination of images of minors by police and the courts. For instance, proceedings in juvenile courts are closed to the public.

Though he declined to be interviewed for this story, Hampden District Attorney Anthony Gulluni said he considered Bigda's tactics "unfortunate" and "contemptible," but that they were not representative of the detective or the department. He also said his office distributed the videos widely to attorneys when the footage was discovered.

However, during the hearing Page questioned the suggestion by district attorney's office that it could withhold the videos from defense lawyers under any circumstances.

"I watched the videos. It's disturbing," Page continued. "But your reasons outlined in your motion to uphold the agreement are equally as disturbing. Because the reasons you set forth for lack of disclosure are, and I quote, that the release of the tape would only function to humiliate the detective and all other officers of the Springfield Police Department."

She said she believed the detective brought embarrassment upon his own department.

"The humiliation occurred during the course of that tape. During the course of that tape," the judge said.

Page concluded the only reason she would issue the protective order was for the sake of the minors in the videos. She noted that another, unidentified Springfield police officer stood in the holding cell while Bigda was browbeating the two boys.

On the night the videos were recorded, three teens jumped into an undercover police car as it was idling outside a Springfield pizza shop and at least one detective was inside retrieving a takeout order, reports state.

The car was later spotted in Wilbraham and chased into Palmer, where three boys, ages 14 to 16, were arrested in connection with the theft.

Bigda and other members of the Springfield Police Department's narcotics squad showed up at the Palmer Police Department lock-up in the early morning hours of Feb. 27, and Bigda's questioning of two of the suspects followed.

"You probably don't even know who your f---ing father is, he screamed at one, who is reportedly Hispanic.

Bigda also threatened to "plant a kilo of coke" in one's pocket and "put him away for 15 years," and told the boys he could manipulate a police report any way he pleases.

He also threatened to make one boy "the police department's bitch."

At points throughout the interrogations, he mocked the cameras installed in the cells.

"See that camera up there? That doesn't f---ing exist (at the Springfield Police Department), so anything that happens to you in my place, never f---ing happened. If I don't write it in the report, it never f---ng happened," he tells one of the boys.

The teens were later transported to the Springfield Police Department.

After initially staying silent on the issue, Mayor Domenic J. Sarno on Sept. 30 announced that he was asking for a legal review of the footage to determine whether any portion could be released publicly. The announcement came one week after the The Republican first reported the suspension and the substance of the videos.

At the close of the Sept. 15 hearing, Page sternly instructed Sandstrom to turn the videos over to "authorities."

"Because if you don't, I shall," she said. "I shall."

A spokesman for Gulluni said the office has not turned the footage over to any other agencies.